Lincoln vs Jefferson

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.

President Lincoln said in his first Inaugural that states have no right to secede:

“It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, – that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

But here’s Jefferson on the same topic:

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

If Thomas Jefferson is correct (and since he helped ‘a little’ in writing some documents :), then Lincoln started a needless war that killed hundreds of thousands and devastated the South!

Thoughts?

2

If a state can get a supermajority (two thirds of the vote or more) in a democratic vote on the question, I think it should be allowed to secede or separate.

I’m from Quebec, I might be biased. Although the popular opinion here is that a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) is enough, a point on which I disagree.

3

The right to secede is not so clear cut. Taking the Constitution at its word with support from the Federalist papers and the early decisions of the Supreme Court makes a rock solid argument for an indissolvable Union.

Madison, author of the Constitition, spent the last 5-6 years of his life making up fresh arguments against nullification and secession during the crisis of 1832. “It is asked whether a state, by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question of whether a state, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might safely be left to answer itself.” - JM.

During Madison’s presidency, the Hartford Convention met in 1814 to consider measures of resistance to Madison’s war. It was perceived as a secessionist movement in the North. What did Madison do? He had his secretary of state move up troops to be ready to crush any rebellion that might emerge.

George Washington was a militant unionist. He sent troops to crush a rebellion in PA during his term, and he would have done the same thing as Lincoln did.
http://www.historynet.com/historical_figures/3027411.html

As far as Jefferson, he also wrote, “Should we have ever gained our Revolution, if we had bound our hands by manacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws become inadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universal resource is a dictator, or martial law.”

I think the Confederate States breaking up the government, invading neutral states, seizing federal property and firing on federal ships would be one of those cases.

4

Jefferson is simply saying people can feel free to TALK about dissolving the union, not ACTING on it. Such talks could help in making the nation better as a whole, which is why he encouraged it. He’s also saying that we have the freedom to TALK about such things and not get thrown in prison for it, as opposed to what happens in other countries.

5

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Jefferson is simply saying people can feel free to TALK about dissolving the union, not ACTING on it. Such talks could help in making the nation better as a whole, which is why he encouraged it. He’s also saying that we have the freedom to TALK about such things and not get thrown in prison for it, as opposed to what happens in other countries.
[/quote]

That reading of Jefferson contradicts the Declaration of Independence.

6

Congressman Lincoln was all for seccession, when Texas seceded from Mexico, f.e…

7

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.

President Lincoln said in his first Inaugural that states have no right to secede:

“It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, – that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

But here’s Jefferson on the same topic:

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

If Thomas Jefferson is correct (and since he helped ‘a little’ in writing some documents :), then Lincoln started a needless war that killed hundreds of thousands and devastated the South!

Thoughts?[/quote]

Interesting topic.

  1. No matter what Jefferson’s opinion was, his is not necessarily the authoritative determination. Not that his opinions are to be ignored, only that it wouldn’t do to say “TJ said it is so, therefore it is”. But that leads to #2…

  2. TJ’s view on secession were not cut and dried, especially in light of the fact that he went after Aaron Burr for his conspiracy to secede and rip off the Louisiana Purchase to start his own Western Empire. TJ considered Burr’s acts to provoke a rebellion to form an independent nation to be treasonous. Pro-secession? Not as obvious as it might appear.

  3. As for TJ’s quote, no one knows for sure, but as to the validity of dissolving the Union, the easy explanation is that it could have been done by calling a constitutional convention and deciding at that august meeting of states, and that, of course, would have been the lawful dissolution TJ spoke of.

  4. “Lincoln’s needless war that killed thousands!” - this is not much of a conclusion, based on what TJ did or need not believe in terms of secession. Though the neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause libertarians maintain that if only the South could have seceded without Lincoln ordering war against them that a fantastic Age of Aquarius would have broken out - hilarious to the point of absurdity - the fragmentation of the Union could have created perpetual war on the North American continent, as old rivalries and spoils would have been up for grabs all over again. The Brits had been eyeballing Texas to regain a foothold in the Americas. Mexico was in a state of perpetual civil war and factions were feeling restless about conquest. Indian tribes still lurked and would have loved to reclaim territory. Spain and France.

Hell, divisions within the seceded states themselves would have created internecine conflict for years - i.e., the ferocious antagonism between Eastern Tennessee Unionists and Western Tennessee Confederates is a perfect example. And that doesn’t even count the near automatic chances of the North and South fighting post-secession - i.e., over territory in the American West.

The failure of the unionized republican experiment in North America would have had dire consequences to the free institutions the later generations have enjoyed. Unionization protected American liberty from external forces - take away the Union, and you take away the fortress that protected the very fragile republican experiment that had only been underway for 100 years. Lincoln wasn’t about to roll over and let that happen on is watch.

8

A Jefferson quote I mentioned in another thread here while back, but worth another one:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

9

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.

President Lincoln said in his first Inaugural that states have no right to secede:

“It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, – that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

But here’s Jefferson on the same topic:

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

If Thomas Jefferson is correct (and since he helped ‘a little’ in writing some documents :), then Lincoln started a needless war that killed hundreds of thousands and devastated the South!

Thoughts?

Interesting topic.

  1. No matter what Jefferson’s opinion was, his is not necessarily the authoritative determination. Not that his opinions are to be ignored, only that it wouldn’t do to say “TJ said it is so, therefore it is”. But that leads to #2…

  2. TJ’s view on secession were not cut and dried, especially in light of the fact that he went after Aaron Burr for his conspiracy to secede and rip off the Louisiana Purchase to start his own Western Empire. TJ considered Burr’s acts to provoke a rebellion to form an independent nation to be treasonous. Pro-secession? Not as obvious as it might appear.

  3. As for TJ’s quote, no one knows for sure, but as to the validity of dissolving the Union, the easy explanation is that it could have been done by calling a constitutional convention and deciding at that august meeting of states, and that, of course, would have been the lawful dissolution TJ spoke of.

  4. “Lincoln’s needless war that killed thousands!” - this is not much of a conclusion, based on what TJ did or need not believe in terms of secession. Though the neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause libertarians maintain that if only the South could have seceded without Lincoln ordering war against them that a fantastic Age of Aquarius would have broken out - hilarious to the point of absurdity - the fragmentation of the Union could have created perpetual war on the North American continent, as old rivalries and spoils would have been up for grabs all over again. The Brits had been eyeballing Texas to regain a foothold in the Americas. Mexico was in a state of perpetual civil war and factions were feeling restless about conquest. Indian tribes still lurked and would have loved to reclaim territory. Spain and France.

Hell, divisions within the seceded states themselves would have created internecine conflict for years - i.e., the ferocious antagonism between Eastern Tennessee Unionists and Western Tennessee Confederates is a perfect example. And that doesn’t even count the near automatic chances of the North and South fighting post-secession - i.e., over territory in the American West.

The failure of the unionized republican experiment in North America would have had dire consequences to the free institutions the later generations have enjoyed. Unionization protected American liberty from external forces - take away the Union, and you take away the fortress that protected the very fragile republican experiment that had only been underway for 100 years. Lincoln wasn’t about to roll over and let that happen on is watch.[/quote]

This thread should end with this post. Couldn’t have said it any better…

And by the way lads…sorry, but the South deserved every fucking bit of what they got. You own slaves, and you secede, and I have no pity, except for that I wish every general took cues from Sherman and Sheridan and decided to make them howl.

Needless war my fucking balls.

10

Jefferson was MUCH more radical when he was VP, and didn’t have any power at all.

The second he stepped into the oval office he mellowed out BIG TIME. Just like Teddy after him.

I doubt he would have allowed a state to secede. He said things like that before he really understood the responsibility of power.

11

Where is it written that once a state is formed and that it joins the union, it forever gives up its right to withdraw from the Union?

(I’m asking in a non-pejorative way.)

FightinIrish,

Less than one-fourth of Southern whites owned slaves. Most were simple farmers or merchants. Does that mean that their crops should be burned, their homes torched, their livestock all killed, and women and children left standing by the side of the road to starve? Thought you were a peace-nik.

12

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Where is it written that once a state is formed and that it joins the union, it forever gives up its right to withdraw from the Union?[/quote]

Because the Union itself was the creation of a nation and the rejection of a confederate league.

As for “where it is written”, the very structure of the federal constitution defies that an inherent right to secede exists. The framers would never have taken such great pains to establish divided power and the so-called ‘checks and balances’ if there were some inherent right to exit the Union when you were unhappy with it.

For example, the Constitution and federal law structures how federal laws are created - majority votes in two legislative houses, subject to an executive signature, etc. If secession were allowed, Congress would need far more than a mere majority to pass laws under the federal constitution - the very threat of secession would allow a minority to thwart the majority on every single piece of legislation offered. That would be odd - since, as a comparison, you would only need 2/3 to override the veto of the President of the US.

Therefore, if secession were allowed, it would add to the express requirements of how a law is passed - needing possibly a unanimous vote to pass laws, for example - and would expressly contradict the framers’ plan.

Why would have the framers bothered with all the mechanics of how to pass a federal law if secession power nullified all the mechanics? Doesn’t make sense.

I can’t answer for Irish - although I do think it is hard to think a man with “Fighting” in his title is too much of a peacenik (;>) - but the point of total war was to save more lives than it cost. Undermine the enemy’s ability and ambition to wage war by taking out its resource base and making its soldiers think about the gutting taking place back home.

End the war in unapologetic fashion - a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and save more lives as a result. Make ordinary Southerners begin to learn that marching off to war to protect some false romantic principle (trumped up by the aristocratic plantationists who wanted to maintain their government provided monopoly) would cost them much more than they would ever gain.

And it worked.

13

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Why would have the framers bothered with all the mechanics of how to pass a federal law if secession power nullified all the mechanics? Doesn’t make sense.
[/quote]

Why would they allow their citizens to bear arms when secessions was out of the question?

How a legitimate revolution looks like is hardly something to be discussed in a constitution.

Political power grows out of the barrels of guns and your anti-revolution founding fathers made sure you owned plenty.

14

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

No, its not Celebrity Death Match, guys, or anything like that.

President Lincoln said in his first Inaugural that states have no right to secede:

“It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, – that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

But here’s Jefferson on the same topic:

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html

If Thomas Jefferson is correct (and since he helped ‘a little’ in writing some documents :), then Lincoln started a needless war that killed hundreds of thousands and devastated the South!

Thoughts?

Interesting topic.

  1. No matter what Jefferson’s opinion was, his is not necessarily the authoritative determination. Not that his opinions are to be ignored, only that it wouldn’t do to say “TJ said it is so, therefore it is”. But that leads to #2…

  2. TJ’s view on secession were not cut and dried, especially in light of the fact that he went after Aaron Burr for his conspiracy to secede and rip off the Louisiana Purchase to start his own Western Empire. TJ considered Burr’s acts to provoke a rebellion to form an independent nation to be treasonous. Pro-secession? Not as obvious as it might appear.

  3. As for TJ’s quote, no one knows for sure, but as to the validity of dissolving the Union, the easy explanation is that it could have been done by calling a constitutional convention and deciding at that august meeting of states, and that, of course, would have been the lawful dissolution TJ spoke of.

  4. “Lincoln’s needless war that killed thousands!” - this is not much of a conclusion, based on what TJ did or need not believe in terms of secession. Though the neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause libertarians maintain that if only the South could have seceded without Lincoln ordering war against them that a fantastic Age of Aquarius would have broken out - hilarious to the point of absurdity - the fragmentation of the Union could have created perpetual war on the North American continent, as old rivalries and spoils would have been up for grabs all over again. The Brits had been eyeballing Texas to regain a foothold in the Americas. Mexico was in a state of perpetual civil war and factions were feeling restless about conquest. Indian tribes still lurked and would have loved to reclaim territory. Spain and France.

Hell, divisions within the seceded states themselves would have created internecine conflict for years - i.e., the ferocious antagonism between Eastern Tennessee Unionists and Western Tennessee Confederates is a perfect example. And that doesn’t even count the near automatic chances of the North and South fighting post-secession - i.e., over territory in the American West.

The failure of the unionized republican experiment in North America would have had dire consequences to the free institutions the later generations have enjoyed. Unionization protected American liberty from external forces - take away the Union, and you take away the fortress that protected the very fragile republican experiment that had only been underway for 100 years. Lincoln wasn’t about to roll over and let that happen on is watch.[/quote]

Good post. Lincoln himself wrote and spoke with great eloquence on the subject of dis-union. Anyone with a passing interest in politics or American history ought to own his collected writings and speeches.

15

[quote]orion wrote:

Why would they allow their citizens to bear arms when secessions was out of the question?[/quote]

Is this a serious question?

Two things. First, the obvious, because of the text: to keep a prepared militia. Most of the national military at that time was organized and administered by state militias, and the militias were made up of volunteering citizens.

Second, to keep citizens armed to respect their right of revolution.

Don’t make the mistake of equating secession with revolution.

See above. Secession by the Southern states was not a revolutionary act - not by the lights of the vaunted Declaration of Independence.

16

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Why would they allow their citizens to bear arms when secessions was out of the question?

Is this a serious question?

Two things. First, the obvious, because of the text: to keep a prepared militia. Most of the national military at that time was organized and administered by state militias, and the militias were made up of volunteering citizens.

Second, to keep citizens armed to respect their right of revolution.

Don’t make the mistake of equating secession with revolution.

How a legitimate revolution looks like is hardly something to be discussed in a constitution.

See above. Secession by the Southern states was not a revolutionary act - not by the lights of the vaunted Declaration of Independence.[/quote]

Oh, come on the US “seceded” from the UK, so did the Confederation secede from the Union.

How do you manage NOT to find any similarities?

I am surprised to see you arguing like that.

Our law is based on the assumption of a positive law, that only grows out of the barrels of guns.

You are basically are arguing along the same lines, even though the tradition of common law and the case system should have you more inclined to believe in a natural or God given order.

Either men have the God given right to life,liberty and private proper…, um, cough, the pursuit of happiness, which includes rebelling against governments, or they are subjects.

The North taxed the shit out of them, they rebelled.

God bless them.

17

[quote]orion wrote:

Oh, come on the US “seceded” from the UK, so did the Confederation secede from the Union.[/quote]

Wow.

If you don’t recognize the difference between a monarchy and a constitutional republic, then I am not sure I can help you out.

The point of a revolution under Jefferson’s natural law is that the colonies had no ability to govern themselves and that British royalty acted without their consent.

A republican form of government renders such claims of “lack of consent” null as long as the political decisions are created by the agreed upon constitutional format. If you take a look at the process, agree that it fairly gives you political input, ratify it (thereby consenting to the format), and operate underneath it, your claim of “lack of consent” is meaningless until you no longer can participate in what you signed up for.

At what point did the Southern states no longer have the powers it started with in the late 1700s?

Then keep reading.

Now you have changed tact - to rebel is not to lawfully withdraw.

The Southerners rebelled all right - but they did not exercise a power under the government they ratified.

Was it a justified rebellion? Can’t be under the government we organized and they ratified by choice.

[quote]The North taxed the shit out of them, they rebelled.

God bless them. [/quote]

The Southern plantationists got rich off of a government permitted monopoly, which acted as a subsidy to the wealthy class of planters - the exact opposite of a free market.

And your talk of ‘rebellion’ shows you have no understanding of American republicanism - after all, taxes are a political animal. If states can secede over purely political disagreements of political questions, then what kind of constitutional government is that at all? Democracy at that point is meaningless. Democracy always produces winners and losers - but a state can opt out of the Union any time it doesn’t get a legislative outcome it wanted? And a state gets to use its threat of secession to nullify federal legislation it doesn’t like?

Outside of being plain unconstitutional - that just plain defies ordinary common sense.

The power of secession would completely emasculate the federal government, making it nearly impossible to do anything at the national level - and the point of the Constitution was to create a stronger national government, not weaken the already weak one under the Articles of Confederation.

18

Uh oh, here come the Lost Cause myths.

Thunderbolt, great posts. I couldn’t agree more.

re: taxes - The total revenue of the federal government in 1860 was around $56 million with a population of 33 - 34 million. Federal taxation per capita was less than $2 per person.

“The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina” - Soon-to-be Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, December 1860.

19

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where is it written that once a state is formed and that it joins the union, it forever gives up its right to withdraw from the Union?

(I’m asking in a non-pejorative way.)

FightinIrish,

Less than one-fourth of Southern whites owned slaves. Most were simple farmers or merchants. Does that mean that their crops should be burned, their homes torched, their livestock all killed, and women and children left standing by the side of the road to starve? Thought you were a peace-nik.[/quote]

Fuck that. The last thing I am is a “peacenick” so don’t fucking label me like that.

When you blatantly support and fight for a society that supports slavery, I am the last man of the face of this fuckin planet that you will receive pity from.

If their husband fought for the dissoving of the union and the upkeep of slavery, then you’re fuckin right they should be sitting by the side of the road.

20

[quote]orion wrote:

I am surprised to see you arguing like that.

Our law is based on the assumption of a positive law, that only grows out of the barrels of guns.

You are basically are arguing along the same lines, even though the tradition of common law and the case system should have you more inclined to believe in a natural or God given order.

Either men have the God given right to life,liberty and private proper…, um, cough, the pursuit of happiness, which includes rebelling against governments, or they are subjects.

The North taxed the shit out of them, they rebelled.

God bless them. [/quote]

Fuck that.

Whatever they tell you in those foreign schools is not right- this war was about slavery, and the ideal that an economy supported by slavery could exist and thrive in the nineteenth century world.

God bless them? My balls, god bless them. See how easy it would be to say “god bless them” if it was your European cousins in bondage instead of the blacks.

I’m disgusted that this even came from the mouth of a fellow, “liberal”.